Doubts on Mrs Fenn's statement?

From Mrs Fenn's statement which is shown in the first post of this tread:

On the 3rd May she received a visit from her niece CAROLE during the morning, who said that when she was on her terrace she saw a male individual looking into the McCANN apartment, a situation which has been told to the police, her cousin even made a photo fit.

That's interesting. I wonder what the photo-fit looked like? I wonder if it was a blond man as both the Jensen sisters saw two blond men behaving suspiciously on the balcony of (supposedly) empty apartment 5C that week. And Jez Wilkins on Friday 4th May reported to police that he saw a blond man with rasta-type hair behaving suspiciously in the tapas bar on Thursday evening.

Snipped from a chirpy post up-thread:

If she was instructed to say she heard crying why would she not just say it was for 10/20 minutes which still serves the purpose of establishing that it could have been M (alive if not happy) and corroborates the neglect aspect. ( but still within the bounds of their checks)
For it to have been 75minutes surely puts the parents in danger of being charged with neglect/abandonment of their children. I doubt the Macs would have told her to say this so I am still on the side of her being truthful but 2 things are odd to me
1 Why did none of the other Tapas hear the crying on their frequent checks assuming they were keeping to the normal routine?
2 Why did PF not mention the incident to the parents maybe next morning or on the night of the abduction?

I agree that if Mrs Fenn had been 'lent on' by TM - say - then she would claim that the crying lasted for a shorter period of time. 75 minutes is a very long time for a child to be crying. And the fact that it stops so abruptly is suspicious, imo. As a sobbing child would take time to calm down. The sobs would become less frequent  and quieter.  

It is possible that one or more of the other Tapas did hear the crying!

Mrs Fenn is recorded as saying she did not mention it to the McCann parents after she learned of the 'abduction' as she did not want to add to their distress.

The distinctive part of Mrs Fenn's testimony, to me at any rate, is that it is an unusually long crying incident. If it had been a few minutes or even 5 or 10 minutes, it would be far less distinctive. It's very common for young children to cry briefly so it would be unremarkably really.

But an hour and a quarter of sustained crying, which escalates and becomes more anguished as time goes on, is unusual. This is something 'out of the ordinary' and therefore it is relevant. A child was distraught for a long time in that apartment that evening.

If the reason for the sustained crying was because a child woke up and found no adult there then the 75 minutes of crying would prove that the McCanns lied about their checking arrangements.

On one evening Kate does state that there was a 45 minute gap between the last check and their return to the apartment but this was, according to Kate Wednesday evening not Tuesday evening. Kate writes that Gerry left abruptly on Wednesday evening at 11.50pm to return to the apartment. This would mean that Kate wishes us to believe that the children were alone in the apartment from 10.35pm until 11.50pm on Wednesday evening.

WOW! Those timings almost exactly mirror the timing of the crying incident as reported by Mrs Fenn only she reports that it was Tuesday. This cannot be a coincidence, surely? I can only assume Kate revealed this information because she wished to give the impression that it was possible that one or more of the children were crying in apartment 5A on Wednesday evening. And one very good reason might be because she suspected that a neighbour might have heard the crying on Tuesday and might report it. So she pretends that it happened on Wednesday instead. And Madeleine wasn't bothered about it the next morning.

This is then reinforced when Kate and Gerry claim Madeleine asked them why they didn't come when she and Sean cried on Thursday morning.

This is all highly suggestive that the crying incident is hugely significant, imo.

I am not certain, but wasn't it the night that one of fathers would have been in the next apartment sideways ,and was coping with his kids ? I think also mrs fenn was not lying ,maybe a little bit less that crying at top of her little lungs ,but on and off for a long time ? joyce1938

I..f this is bit dodgy to put here in print ,please remove freedom . Its a bit clever to get most people away from the appts . was this a suitable time to hide a packageaway for short time only ,then get removed close to the appts,and then join the rest in the search. joyce1938

Oops - got a bit muddled with timings in the post above.

Kate claims that the children were alone on Wednesday evening from around 11pm (when presumably there was supposed to be a half-hourly check) until Gerry abruptly left the Tapas dinner table at 11.50pm. This would mean that potentially a child or several children could have been crying in apartment 5A from a time shortly after the 11pm 'check' until a time shortly before 11.50pm when Gerry was on his way back to apartment 5A.

And indeed Kate claims that both Madeleine AND Sean did wake up and cry at some point between checks during Wednesday evening. Because allegedly Madeleine on Thursday morning asks her parents why they didn't come last night when she and Sean cried.

I had always thought that this revelation was partly to reinforce the 'checking' story and partly to introduce the idea that an abductor could have done a dummy run the night before and maybe disturbed the children. Plus of course reinforce that the children were left alone therefore giving the 'abductor' an opportunity to swoop.

I think it also places Madeleine as being alive and well on Thursday morning, when she wasn't, imo. It further serves to suggest that Sean (and Amelie) were with Madeleine on Wednesday evening, when I strongly suspect this was not the case as I believe Madeleine had already come to grief by then.

A further motive for this crying story I believe is to detract from Mrs Fenn having overheard anguished sobbing on Tuesday night. And to try to downplay its importance. And the 'fact' that there was 45 minutes between checks on Wednesday night, according to Kate, would allow a reasonably long period of time for a child to wake up and cry - from sometime after the 11pm check until some time before Gerry arrived back at 11.50pm. This just happens to coincide with at least some of the time that Mrs Fenn heard crying on Tuesday so it could support the idea that Mrs Fenn had been mistaken about the night she heard crying.

But crucially, imo, the significance of a crying incident - as overheard by Mrs Fenn on Tuesday - is downplayed. You often have to reverse what the Mcs say to get at the truth.

Tuesday evening just so happens to be quiz night. If it is true that the McCanns visited Chaplins on Tuesday, I suspect this is the night the Kate stormed off in a fit of jealousy over the bubbly quiz host who GM invited to the TM table.

I think *something* had already happened to Madeleine by Tuesday evening and she woke up that night distraught. I suspect she was inconsolable and GM lost his temper. Mrs Fenn records the crying stopping suddenly at 11.45pm on Tuesday night. Gerry allegedly gets back to the apartment at a similar time on Wednesday night. I suspect it was the previous evening that Gerry got back at around this time. And that his getting back to the apartment is related to the sudden cessation of crying.

A theory as always.

Gerry spoke to Mrs Fenn .......don't know if this has been posted so remove if necessary!
I don't know much about British police. So how would they react if I spoke to a witness in Britain. Especially if I was a suspect?


http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/mccann-mrsfenn-swore-she-had-not-spoken.html


#McCann : Mrs.Fenn Swore She Had NOT Spoken With ANY Journalist's BUT We Now Know She Had Spoken To The Manipulative Gerry McCann !
Or as some might see it, interfering with a PRIME witness


Mr Fenn, who lives in England, visits the flat monthly and has witnessed its transformation from white-washed holiday home to a ghoulish, run-down tourist attraction. “There are always tourists who stand outside and get their friends to take their photograph outside 5a,” he says wearily. “They find some ghastly attraction in being pictured at the spot when a little girl was abducted. Gerry McCann did come up to apologise to my mother for all the unwanted attention – which was incredibly kind as he has endured a grief and pain that no parent should ever have to withstand.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8469932/Madeleine-McCann-time-to-forget.html

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2007/12/mrs-fenn-british-press-its-all-rubbish.html


Posted by SteelMagnolia at 2:24 PM

Not much of a press consensus as to this lady's age, was there...?  :

Rosa canina wrote:Not much of a press consensus as to this lady's age, was there...?  :

No, they can't even get a simple thing like her age correct can they, so easy to verify. So, on that note, it makes you wonder about the 'other' accounts which appeared about her, which some people are taking as fact and basing their research on and making accusations.

canada12 wrote:For all the energy expended in trying to discredit Mrs. Fenn, people should remember that Kate and Gerry have absolutely confirmed that she IS credible. She says she heard a child crying. Kate and Gerry have turned somersaults explaining that yes, she DID hear a child crying! It was Madeleine. Or it was Amelie. Perhaps it was Sean. Or Amelie and Sean. Or Madeleine and Sean. The only thing Kate and Gerry have disputed is which night it was. So they've admitted neglect and they've admitted they didn't come when their child or children cried. It doesn't matter that nobody else heard the crying. It doesn't matter that Mrs Fenn called a friend instead of interfering. Kate and Gerry have told us over and over that one or more of their children was crying and, by inference, that was what Mrs. Fenn must have heard. If Mrs. Fenn is discredited, so are Kate and Gerry. If there was no crying child, why did Kate and Gerry go to such lengths to make up a story to confirm what she heard?

I believe it is true that the McCanns corroberated what Mrs Fenn heard, as TB claims. But this is purely for the sake of being able to kill 2 birds with one stone:

- Firstly, to detract from the fact that crying was held on the Tuesday by agreeing crying took place on the Wednesday (therefore we can conclude that crying certainly did happen in the Tuesday and the McCanns don't want that looked at too carefully!). By admitting crying took place on the Wednesday this is what most people will remember and, when they hear Mrs Fenn's account, will assume she simply heard the crying on the Wednesday already alluded to. Most people will not realise Mrs Fenn is referring to a different day to the McCanns.

- Secondly, as has been pointed out so often, the fact Mrs Fenn heard crying proves to the casual onlooker that Madeleine was alive at that point (the Mcs want us to believe the Wednesday night, of course).

So yes, Mrs Fenn is very valuable to the McCanns but to conclude Mrs Fenn is working for them from that simple fact is lunacy. What she heard fitted - with a bit of twisting - into what they wanted us to believe, that's all.

It is for this reason I don't believe it was a tape recording Mrs Fenn heard. If this was the case, the McCanns would have simply played the tape on the Wednesday night, not the Tuesday night.

No - the crying on the Tuesday night is, I believe, very significant indeed.

It is interesting that certain things in this case are clearly more sensitive that others. We can see this because the "pros" start shouting about these things as soon as they are mentioned and an awful lot of 'interference on the airwaves' comes immediately into play. Arguments and distractions are blown up by people on 'both sides' as soon as these sensitive subjects are raised.

They are:

- Eddie and Keela's findings.

- The Smith sighting.

- The Last photo.

- The CEOP page capture by the WBM.

- The DNA and fluids found and the analysis of.

- Mrs Fenn's evidence.

Any others?

My conclusion therefore is these are the areas too close to comfort for the McCanns liking and therefore the areas in which we can safely assume we are near to the truth.

All my own opinion and theories, as usual.

Totally agree on the tape recording, what would've happened if those two ladies or anyone else went in to check and found the recording? Also, the recorder would've woken the other children.

Robert Murat. Generally he seems to split the camps in two ,being portrayed as either genuine all round,laid back good guy,or suspicious medlar who may or may not be central to the plot. Interestingly I have just looked at Cristobells blog and she don't take kindly to anyone dissing RM. Although he was a person of interest hauled in by MPS OG,so who knows! Myself I think plenty remains to be explained by big Rab......he certainly a sensitive subject.

Arguments and distractions are blown up by people on 'both sides' as soon as these sensitive subjects are raised.

They are:

- Eddie and Keela's findings.

- The Smith sighting.

- The Last photo.

- The CEOP page capture by the WBM.

- The DNA and fluids found and the analysis of.

- Mrs Fenn's evidence.

Any others?

My conclusion therefore is these are the areas too close to comfort for the McCanns liking and therefore the areas in which we can safely assume we are near to the truth.

---------

Agreed.

I would add:

The crying incident has been heavily sanitized plus moved to another night

A row between Kate and Gerry that week. Probably early on in the week (Tuesday?)

Quiz night/s - including when and where it was held

Bubbly quiz host who GM invited to join their table after the quiz

Smithman has to be Tannerman rather than an unrelated and independent sighting

The distance of the Tapas (or wherever else they might have dined/had drinks that week) to apartment 5A

Madeleine's tennis lesson on Tuesday during which (allegedly!) Kate takes one of the few photos of her that week

The night(s?) that Kate slept apart from GM

David Payne's visit to Kate (allegedly!) in apartment 5A on Thursday late afternoon/early evening

Bampots wrote:Robert Murat. Generally he seems to split the camps in two ,being portrayed as either genuine all round,laid back good guy,or suspicious medlar who may or may not be central to the plot. Interestingly I have just looked at Cristobells blog and she don't take kindly to anyone dissing RM. Although he was a person of interest hauled in by MPS OG,so who knows! Myself I think plenty remains to be explained by big Rab......he certainly a sensitive subject.

Quite agree,willing or unwilling patsy?

------

It cannot be disputed that he was very heavily involved in the case in terms of acting as police translator. So was privy to key eye-witness information.

He was generously rewarded for, apparently, having his life turned upside down by being made 'arguido'. However there is no evidence that this had a particularly terrible effect on his life. £600,000 is a nice tidy sum.

Others imo have also financially benefited from this of course.

Maybe the hate mail with threats to his child turned his life upside down?

There is an excellent analysis of Robert Murat's body language somewhere which I will try to locate which shows him at around the time of the libel trial in which he won damages which does not show a man whose life has been destroyed. He looks upbeat and relaxed. I also think that the telephone conversation between Robert Murat and Sky News' Martin Brunt is ridiculously staged. At the beginning of the conversation Martin Brunt speaks to Jennifer Murat and affects to not know what 'arguido' means when Jennifer tells Brunt that her son has been made a suspect. That the chief crime reporter at Sky would not know what Jennifer Brunt meant is absurd in the extreme and evidence, as far as I am concerned, of a huge Scam. In any event, if this had been a genuine crime investigation, why on earth would the Sky News crime reporter be having cozy little chats with the suspect? Talk about prejudicial to the case...

Given that Murat was merely made a suspect and was never imprisoned,  I think it is also worth nothing that Barry George, who spent eight years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of killing Jill Dando, has not received a penny of compensation for a wrongful conviction. Not one penny.

But back to Mrs Fenn. TB is insistent that Mrs Fenn did not make her statement to police until August 2007. I find it impossible to believe that police would not have wanted to interview such a vital key witness very early on. She was one of the few (if only I do believe!) permanent residents of the block. And she was also in the only (non-TM) apartment adjacent to 5A. As she was a resident rather than a guest-  and also elderly - this might mean she would spend more time in her apartment. And also be more vigilant than holiday-makers who would be out and about.

Therefore she is a KEY eye-witness. Given that Mrs Fenn's niece who was visiting her Aunt that week contacted police very soon after her return to the UK when she heard about 'the abduction' to report having seen a suspicious-looking man on the afternoon of Thursday  3rd near apartment 5A, I find it impossible to believe that Mrs Fenn did not speak to police until the summer.

Police would have wanted to interview any neighbours as a matter of priority.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm

thhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31578422

dogs don't lie wrote:Maybe the hate mail with threats to his child turned his life upside down?

--------

Do we know this is true? In any event, it is a measure of how ridiculous this case is that the press were allowed to have a field-day with allegations about suspects before they had been convicted.

Suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore the press should not have been able to publish information that might incriminate a fair trail.

Why were the press allowed to do so in this particular case? Enabling those supposedly libelled  (whether or not the allegations were true) to claim massive compensation payments?

Yet - as stated above - people who have been wrongfully convicted and have served terms can be denied any compensation.

Sticks and stones break bones. Words - especially from the MMM - are just words. And mostly rubbish, imo.

It's an absolute given that any police force would go round door to door and ask if anyone had seen or heard anything, people really must get this into their heads, the neighbours are most important in cases like this.  They would take initial statements off everyone in the vicinity, brief but with facts.  They they go through them and call people back for formal statements and as I have said before there were so many in and around the Ocean Club and PDL that this would obviously take time, along with all the sightings etc... it doesn't happen overnight unfortunately, unless they get lucky and get the witness who can help them identify someone.

For those that love a good conspiracy I think this from Not Textusa is spot on myself, although the 'deluded' word I dislike.  This to do with people saying Madeleine disappeared earlier and everyone is lying!

From Cristobell's blog re the Murat discussion......



Not Textusa 2 February 2015 at 15.03

I really have rarely encountered such nonsense.

One of the first things the police do in any case like this is establish when the victim was last seen, and whether there were changes to their normal routine.  This was quickly established with independent witnesses and documented evidence such as the register from the kids club and photographs taken that day.

They do not then take into consideration that years down the line a bunch of deluded individuals will decide all those witnesses lied, and so set about finding a load more.

In an interview, Mr Amaral was asked a direct question as to whether they were certain Madeleine had been alive up to that day.  He said yes, there was no doubt.


I agree that Madeleine was around until 3rd May imo.

Well, I agree that neighbours are important witnesses, hence I do not agree with TB's insistence that Mrs Fenn did not speak to police until the summer of 2007.

However, I do not agree about the register from the kids' club being necessarily accurate. Nor do I believe in the validity of the photos allegedly taken of Madeleine that week.

Madeleine might very well have been alive up to that day - ie Thursday. But being alive is not the same as being well. I think she might possibly have come to grief earlier in the week, and died later in the week.

Changes to the normal routine started on Monday morning as far as the McCanns are concerned. Therefore by Monday morning maybe something bad had happened? Or there was a need to conceal Madeleine in particular for some reason? If it is true that she died that week then  I suspect something bad happened and it was a few days before Madeleine actually died or was allowed to die or was not resuscitated perhaps? Horrible to contemplate.

Purely theoretical and hypothetical and hopefully wrong.

poster wrote:

candyfloss wrote:It's an absolute given that any police force would go round door to door and ask if anyone had seen or heard anything, people really must get this into their heads, the neighbours are most important in cases like this.  They would take initial statements off everyone in the vicinity, brief but with facts.  They they go through them and call people back for formal statements and as I have said before there were so many in and around the Ocean Club and PDL that this would obviously take time, along with all the sightings etc... it doesn't happen overnight unfortunately, unless they get lucky and get the witness who can help them identify someone.

For those that love a good conspiracy I think this from Not Textusa is spot on myself, although the 'deluded' word I dislike.  This to do with people saying Madeleine disappeared earlier and everyone is lying!

From Cristobell's blog re the Murat discussion......



Not Textusa 2 February 2015 at 15.03

I really have rarely encountered such nonsense.

One of the first things the police do in any case like this is establish when the victim was last seen, and whether there were changes to their normal routine.  This was quickly established with independent witnesses and documented evidence such as the register from the kids club and photographs taken that day.

They do not then take into consideration that years down the line a bunch of deluded individuals will decide all those witnesses lied, and so set about finding a load more.

In an interview, Mr Amaral was asked a direct question as to whether they were certain Madeleine had been alive up to that day.  He said yes, there was no doubt.


I agree that Madeleine was around until 3rd May imo.

-----------

Well, I agree that neighbours are important witnesses, hence I do not agree with TB's insistence that Mrs Fenn did not speak to police until the summer of 2007.

However, I do not agree about the register from the kids' club being necessarily accurate. Nor do I believe in the validity of the photos allegedly taken of Madeleine that week.

Madeleine might very well have been alive up to that day - ie Thursday. But being alive is not the same as being well. I think she might possibly have come to grief earlier in the week, and died later in the week.

Changes to the normal routine started on Monday morning as far as the McCanns are concerned. Therefore by Monday morning maybe something bad had happened? Or there was a need to conceal Madeleine in particular for some reason? If it is true that she died that week then  I suspect something bad happened and it was a few days before Madeleine actually died or was allowed to die or was not resuscitated perhaps? Horrible to contemplate.

Purely theoretical and hypothetical and hopefully wrong.

Yes, agreed crèche sheets a bit of a mess, why I don't know, maybe just someone wasn't very good at keeping records. It is the constant mantra of everyone lying that does get to me, just how many do they think were in on 'it' Do people honestly believe that a lady upstairs, an old lady would lie because someone told her to, and risk being found out, and more importantly risk a child's life,? I expect the next thing will be she was drafted out there to be in place for 'it'. Mr Smith was probably drafted in as well so he could lie to the police......... doh, sorry, but it does get to me after 9 years. Oh and let's not forget Robert Murat who rushed back dropped his decorating and rushed back at the speed of light to be in on it... The list of people is endless, we should make one sometime - it would be jaw dropping.

KISS!

poster wrote:
Changes to the normal routine started on Monday morning as far as the McCanns are concerned.

What normal routine they had only been there a couple of day's.

From Mrs Fenn's niece statement:

CT'After arriving home, Sunday morning we woke and read the Times Sunday paper. There we saw my aunt's apartment and the notice about the missing child. I did not want to believe it and for this reason telephoned her and said: 'Did you see'' to which she responded 'It was been an inferno, terrible since both of you left'. After this I spoke with my cousin, whose son is at Sandhurst and told her 'What do you think we should do, do you think'' because at this time I remembered that I had seen something. It did not come to me right away but afterwards I told my husband 'Well, I saw that funny situation, you know'that type of behavior of the individual, with a sneaky aspect' to which he responded, 'Well you should talk to the police', and I said 'Yes, but it is likely that it has nothing to do with it'. After, we thought a bit more about it and I telephoned my cousin who is at Sandhurst and he told me that I should call the police and tell them. I did exactly this. I telephoned the Windsor police and told them, more or less, what I had told him and to my family. They told me that they would give me a number to call the Leicester police. We passed by the Windsor squadron but it is clear that no one was there so I called the Leciester police and told them basically what I had seen. They told me, well'thank you, we are going to get in touch with you, and after that everything happened. This is what happened, more or less.

She gave her statement on 8th May.

In her statement she give a very detailed description of a blond man she saw acting furtively. It is also on record that she helped create an 'efit' of this man. Which, as far as I know, was not released. It was certainly not mentioned by Kate in her book. Which is suspicious, imo. Another key eyewitness ignored.

DC1485'Presuppose that I have just entered this investigation, that I do not know about your previous statement; that I know nothing about this individual.

CT'Okay.

DC1485'Where should we start.

CT'At the head.

DC1485'the head.

CT'Because it was what I saw first.

DC1485'yes.

CT'Humm... he was blonde, with a lot of hair, very short, not like mine but a little more, humm... but not like a footballer, do you know what I mean' A style close to shaven. Very short, blonde, the head was very sculptured. The shape of the head was very sculptured, more oval shaped.

DC1485'Yes.

CT'And, humm... then I believe I saw him wearing a blue-grey T-shirt, it was not dark blue, more of a pallid colour and it was, humm... a type of blue with short sleeves, humm... but I did not see anything below, I did not see the trousers or shoes or anything else, only the top part and he would have, I would say'humm, when looking from above, he was not short, I would say he was about a 1'78, about medium height. He was not thing nor was he muscular. So he was of average stature. I would say he was European but not Portuguese. He was not dark and, he was not short, but I would say that he looked Scandinavian if you will, because he was very light and could have been British or Scandinavian. Even though I was looking upwards, he had big eyes, there is nothing else. He did not have tattoos, nothing like this, humm'a person of common appearance, it was his furtiveness that called my attention, humm, no, I can't'

DC1485'Could you give him an age'

CT'Yes, I believe so, I would say that he was between, oh he was not old, 30 to 35, I don't believe that he was older than this.

DC1485'And his aspect'

CT'It was clear, he was light-skinned, he had no freckles, he was not sunburned, he was not dark, nor bronzed from the sun, he was a light colour, not white, white but you know'humm..he was not one who was exposed to the sun.



Interesting.......a blond, light-skinned man who looks British or Scandinavian. Certainly not Portuguese. And with cropped hair.....how very different to Jane Tanner's 'Tannerman' who is of Southern Mediterranean appearance with very dark hair, quite uncropped and reaching down to the collar.

Now why would this efit have been suppressed I wonder in favour of 'Tannerman'?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm

Heisenburg wrote:

poster wrote:
Changes to the normal routine started on Monday morning as far as the McCanns are concerned.

What normal routine they had only been there a couple of day's.

---------

They had breakfast at the Millennium on Sunday morning and they had lunch at the Payne's apartment on Sunday lunchtime.

After that, they always had breakfast in their own apartment. And lunch in their own apartment.

Whereas their friends and their friends' children would have breakfast at the Millennium. And would also typically meet up at lunchtime - often at the Payne's apartment as it was the largest.

A deviation from the routine followed by their friends. Which, imo, is suspicious. There is no way their children would not have wanted to meet up with the larger group at breakfast and also at lunch, imo.

So a routine was set not changed.

-----

No. A routine was established on Sunday. The type of normal routine that you would expect a group of friends with children to follow for the rest of the week given that they have chosen to share a holiday together. You would expect them to want to take advantage of the large all-included breakfast spread every morning. And you would expect them to want to - at least sometimes- share lunches with their friends.

The McCanns deviated from the routine- established on Sunday - that their friends followed for the rest of the week. Why would they want all the hassle, expense and mess of catering for two meals in their own apartment, particularly when one was included in the holiday price? Makes no sense at all. Apart from anything, Madeleine at age nearly four would have been desperate to spend time with her friends.